I enjoy reading comics. I recommend people read such for their own enjoyment.However:I don't think you should have to read comic books to understand comic movies.
I think a similar phenomenon is present in Dungeons & Dragons when it comes to lore.
Much like comics, DND lore can & is retconned, expanded on and/or simplified all the time, with multiple canons existing, & a multiverse connecting but not merging them. My favorite character in the Forgotten Realms, for example, is Jarlaxle. I first learned of him from Waterdeep:Dragon Heist, then later, I went to read a good chunk of FR stories with him in them. I didn't need to do this, but I did it voluntarily.
The question is:SHOULD I have had to do this to fully appreciate my favorite FR character, if, for example, his lore changes in the upcoming Forgotten Realms book?
Should anyone?
Should required reading/viewing be needed to, for example, understand the apparent NEED to keep Amethyst Dragon Hatchlings out of RA Salvatore & Ed Greenwood canon's Purple Dragon Knights, even though that canon has zero real bearing on the in-game toolkit? It's like asking viewers of Marvel's Agents of Shield Season 1 to have to read 70s Deathlok to understand 1 supporting character who didn't stick around that long.
I don't think it should be mandatory to do read a ton of old, semi-retconned, often poorly aged material for the sake of similarly small elements between canons. Heck, it can poison the well with new directions, innovations & ideas, resulting in, for example, the New Old Banneret & poorly aged cannon fodder Drow stat blocks returning, despite the outcry.
But what do you all think?
Glad to be back!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I too am a comic fan and fan of comic movies (and obviously of D&D) and I think for all of them they should endeavour to be as standalone as possible. It's hard to get my players to read the actual PHB or the setting lore never mind getting them to read a load of obscure novels from the 80s to get an understanding of what's going on. I think anything that does introduce more classic lore, like Jarlaxle in Dragon Heist, needs to be done in such away that everything you need to know is right there and anything extra is just a nice nod to those who do recognise the reference. I think the D&D movie did a fantastic job of this, those of us with more knowledge had a lot of fun identifying specific spells or recognising certain more exotic races as they popped up but someone like my best friend, who only started playing after the film, still enjoyed it as an entertaining package in it's own right and didn't need to know anything about Zsass Tam or the Red Wizards beyond what was given in the film itself
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I enjoy reading comics. I recommend people read such for their own enjoyment.However:I don't think you should have to read comic books to understand comic movies.
I think a similar phenomenon is present in Dungeons & Dragons when it comes to lore.
Much like comics, DND lore can & is retconned, expanded on and/or simplified all the time, with multiple canons existing, & a multiverse connecting but not merging them. My favorite character in the Forgotten Realms, for example, is Jarlaxle. I first learned of him from Waterdeep:Dragon Heist, then later, I went to read a good chunk of FR stories with him in them. I didn't need to do this, but I did it voluntarily.
The question is:SHOULD I have had to do this to fully appreciate my favorite FR character, if, for example, his lore changes in the upcoming Forgotten Realms book?
Should anyone?
Should required reading/viewing be needed to, for example, understand the apparent NEED to keep Amethyst Dragon Hatchlings out of RA Salvatore & Ed Greenwood canon's Purple Dragon Knights, even though that canon has zero real bearing on the in-game toolkit? It's like asking viewers of Marvel's Agents of Shield Season 1 to have to read 70s Deathlok to understand 1 supporting character who didn't stick around that long.
I don't think it should be mandatory to do read a ton of old, semi-retconned, often poorly aged material for the sake of similarly small elements between canons. Heck, it can poison the well with new directions, innovations & ideas, resulting in, for example, the New Old Banneret & poorly aged cannon fodder Drow stat blocks returning, despite the outcry.
But what do you all think?
Glad to be back!
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I too am a comic fan and fan of comic movies (and obviously of D&D) and I think for all of them they should endeavour to be as standalone as possible. It's hard to get my players to read the actual PHB or the setting lore never mind getting them to read a load of obscure novels from the 80s to get an understanding of what's going on. I think anything that does introduce more classic lore, like Jarlaxle in Dragon Heist, needs to be done in such away that everything you need to know is right there and anything extra is just a nice nod to those who do recognise the reference. I think the D&D movie did a fantastic job of this, those of us with more knowledge had a lot of fun identifying specific spells or recognising certain more exotic races as they popped up but someone like my best friend, who only started playing after the film, still enjoyed it as an entertaining package in it's own right and didn't need to know anything about Zsass Tam or the Red Wizards beyond what was given in the film itself